Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > uk.telecom.mobile > #45399 > unrolled thread

EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force

Back to article view | Back to uk.telecom.mobile

Contents

  EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-29 03:32 +0000
    Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-28 19:43 -0800
      Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2024-12-29 10:05 +0000
        Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> - 2024-12-29 11:32 +0100
          Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Harry S Robins <stanleyrobins@nothere.uk> - 2024-12-29 09:24 -0600
            Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-29 10:12 -0800
          Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-29 10:12 -0800
    Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> - 2024-12-29 09:40 +0000
      Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Abandoned Trolley <that.bloke@microsoft.com> - 2024-12-29 11:24 +0000
        Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> - 2024-12-29 12:24 +0000
          Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Nick Cine <nickcine@is.invalid> - 2024-12-29 08:31 -0700
            Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-29 16:50 +0100
              Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-29 17:46 +0000
                Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-29 10:04 -0800
                Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-30 02:42 +0000
                  Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-29 18:45 -0800
                    Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> - 2024-12-29 22:37 -0500
                      Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-29 19:40 -0800
                        Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-30 16:44 +0100
                          Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2024-12-30 15:56 +0000
                            Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-30 19:11 +0000
                              Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-30 11:23 -0800
                            Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-30 23:17 +0100
                              Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-31 00:58 +0000
                              Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-31 11:42 +0000
                                Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-31 15:17 +0100
                                  Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-31 15:36 +0000
                                    Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-31 20:18 +0100
                                      Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-31 21:15 +0000
                                        Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-31 23:00 +0100
                                          Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2024-12-31 22:25 +0000
                                            Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-01 00:16 +0100
                          Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-30 08:47 -0800
                            Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2024-12-30 19:25 +0000
                              Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-30 11:49 -0800
                              Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-31 01:05 +0000
                                Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-30 22:34 -0800
                      Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-30 04:50 +0000
                        Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-29 20:58 -0800
                      Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2024-12-30 18:03 +1300
                      Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-30 05:06 +0000
                        Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-29 22:36 -0800
                      Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> - 2024-12-30 10:26 +0100
                      Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Nick Charles - 2024-12-30 17:41 -0500
                        Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-31 01:11 +0000
                  Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-30 19:33 +0000
                    Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-30 11:51 -0800
                    Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-12-31 15:24 +0000
              Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-29 10:19 -0800
            Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-29 10:14 -0800
        Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-29 10:13 -0800
        Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-12-29 18:21 +0000
        Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> - 2024-12-29 10:46 -0800
          Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-29 19:25 +0000
            Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2024-12-30 12:07 +0000
              Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-30 12:32 +0000
                Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-30 19:17 +0000
                  Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-30 11:24 -0800
                    Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Zaidy036 <Zaidy036@air.isp.spam> - 2024-12-30 14:39 -0500
                      Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-30 11:48 -0800
                      Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-31 01:17 +0000
                  Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2024-12-31 16:03 +0000
                    Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2025-01-01 01:20 +0000
            Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> - 2024-12-30 06:21 -0800
    Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-12-29 09:00 -0500
      Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force "Jan K." <janicekoziol@nie.ma.spamu.prosze.com> - 2024-12-29 16:18 +0100
        Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-12-29 12:25 -0500
          Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-29 17:39 +0000
            Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-29 10:03 -0800
          Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-29 10:02 -0800
            Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-12-31 08:39 -0500
            Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-12-31 15:58 +0000
              Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-31 10:01 -0800
                Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-12-31 21:41 +0000
                  Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> - 2025-01-01 00:18 +0000
        Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-29 10:20 -0800
        Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-12-29 18:21 +0000
          Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-30 02:50 +0000
            Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-29 18:53 -0800
          Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-30 16:36 +0100
            Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-31 12:10 +0000
              Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-31 15:26 +0100
              Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2024-12-31 14:42 +0000
                Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-31 15:28 +0000
                  Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2024-12-31 17:00 +0000
                    Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-31 19:00 +0000
                      Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-31 20:15 +0100
                        Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-31 21:19 +0000
                      Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-12-31 21:47 +0000
                        Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-31 22:22 +0000
                          Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2025-01-01 01:36 +0000
                            Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2025-01-01 01:41 +0000
                          Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-01 16:32 +0000
                            Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2025-01-02 00:18 +0000
                              Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Ken <ken@birchanger.com> - 2025-01-02 09:53 +0000
                                Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2025-01-02 10:34 +0000
                                  Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Ken <ken@birchanger.com> - 2025-01-04 11:18 +0000
              Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-03 21:43 +0000
                Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-04 14:45 +0000
            Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-12-31 15:37 +0000
              Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2025-01-01 01:47 +0000
                Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-31 22:55 -0800
                Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-01-01 12:56 -0800
        Re: EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> - 2024-12-29 10:48 -0800

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

#45468

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2024-12-29 19:21, Chris wrote:
> > Jan K. <janicekoziol@nie.ma.spamu.prosze.com> wrote:
[...]
> >> Next up on the EU's list for 2026: Easily Changeable Batteries (you know,
> >> what every cell phone 20 years ago had before Apple).
> > 
> > Which almost no-one made use of and the only "feature" of it was that
> > phones regularly broke into three pieces every time they were dropped.
> > 
> > It's cheap to replace batteries currently. Not sure what benefit mandating
> > it will have.
> 
> It is not only phones. I had to replace the battery in my Kobo touch 
> ebook, and it was difficult.
> 
> So yes, I welcome that law a lot.

  Same here with my wife's Kobo Auro E2 eReader. Battery charge lasted
only for a few days, when *not* used.

  Also other devices with internal rechargeable batteries which are not
replaceable by the user and often also not - or at least not
economically feasible - by the supplier.

  For me/us for example, Bluetooth headphone, small Bluetooth
transmitter [1], Fitbit activity trackers ('smartwatches') [2], etc..

  Apparently we're supposed to throw these devices away after only a few
years. Not only wasting money, but also wasting precious and limited
materials/metals and addiding to electronic waste.

  Of course user/easy replaceable batteries would make these devices
somewhat larger and somewhat more expensive. But I would like to have
that choice.

[1] This one is already basically dead. Only lasts for a few hours after
charging.

[2] Already had to throw away three of those.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45471

On 2024-12-31 13:10, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2024-12-29 19:21, Chris wrote:
>>> Jan K. <janicekoziol@nie.ma.spamu.prosze.com> wrote:
> [...]
>>>> Next up on the EU's list for 2026: Easily Changeable Batteries (you know,
>>>> what every cell phone 20 years ago had before Apple).
>>>
>>> Which almost no-one made use of and the only "feature" of it was that
>>> phones regularly broke into three pieces every time they were dropped.
>>>
>>> It's cheap to replace batteries currently. Not sure what benefit mandating
>>> it will have.
>>
>> It is not only phones. I had to replace the battery in my Kobo touch
>> ebook, and it was difficult.
>>
>> So yes, I welcome that law a lot.
> 
>    Same here with my wife's Kobo Auro E2 eReader. Battery charge lasted
> only for a few days, when *not* used.

The Kobo Libra Colour announced that it is serviceable. I take it to 
mean that there will be spares.


> 
>    Also other devices with internal rechargeable batteries which are not
> replaceable by the user and often also not - or at least not
> economically feasible - by the supplier.
> 
>    For me/us for example, Bluetooth headphone, small Bluetooth
> transmitter [1], Fitbit activity trackers ('smartwatches') [2], etc..

Right.

>    Apparently we're supposed to throw these devices away after only a few
> years. Not only wasting money, but also wasting precious and limited
> materials/metals and addiding to electronic waste.
> 
>    Of course user/easy replaceable batteries would make these devices
> somewhat larger and somewhat more expensive. But I would like to have
> that choice.

Yes.

> 
> [1] This one is already basically dead. Only lasts for a few hours after
> charging.
> 
> [2] Already had to throw away three of those.

:-(

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45472

On 31 Dec 2024 12:10:16 GMT
Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> For me/us for example, Bluetooth headphone, small Bluetooth
transmitter [1], Fitbit activity trackers ('smartwatches') [2],

> [2] Already had to throw away three of those.

Thereby confirming that the term 'smart' means no such thing. Again.

-- 
Davey.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45474

Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
> On 31 Dec 2024 12:10:16 GMT
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > For me/us for example, Bluetooth headphone, small Bluetooth
> transmitter [1], Fitbit activity trackers ('smartwatches') [2],
> 
> > [2] Already had to throw away three of those.
> 
> Thereby confirming that the term 'smart' means no such thing. Again.

  To be fair, Fitbit doesn't call them 'smartwatches', that's why I used
scare quotes, but these devices are also watches - as they tell the time,
have alarms, etc. - and are somwhat 'smart'. AFAIK, there isn't a
clear-cut definition as to what is/isn't a 'smartwatch' (contrary to
what is/isn't a 'smartphone').

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45479

On 31 Dec 2024 15:28:03 GMT
Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
> > On 31 Dec 2024 12:10:16 GMT
> > Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >   
> > > For me/us for example, Bluetooth headphone, small Bluetooth  
> > transmitter [1], Fitbit activity trackers ('smartwatches') [2],
> >   
> > > [2] Already had to throw away three of those.  
> > 
> > Thereby confirming that the term 'smart' means no such thing.
> > Again.  
> 
>   To be fair, Fitbit doesn't call them 'smartwatches', that's why I
> used scare quotes, but these devices are also watches - as they tell
> the time, have alarms, etc. - and are somwhat 'smart'. AFAIK, there
> isn't a clear-cut definition as to what is/isn't a
> 'smartwatch' (contrary to what is/isn't a 'smartphone').

I see 'smartwatches' mainly being used to buy things with, or to
register a loyalty card. Watching somebody with large fingers
'swiping' a 1-inch diameter screen always makes me laugh.
And my scepticism of the 'smart' nomenclature extends to 'smartphones'.
But then, I am a happy Luddite. Just because we can make something,
doesn't mean we have to use it. See: Land-based wind turbines. ULEZ
zones.
-- 
Davey.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45481

Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
> On 31 Dec 2024 15:28:03 GMT
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
> > > On 31 Dec 2024 12:10:16 GMT
> > > Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > For me/us for example, Bluetooth headphone, small Bluetooth  
> > > transmitter [1], Fitbit activity trackers ('smartwatches') [2],
> > >   
> > > > [2] Already had to throw away three of those.  
> > > 
> > > Thereby confirming that the term 'smart' means no such thing.
> > > Again.  
> > 
> >   To be fair, Fitbit doesn't call them 'smartwatches', that's why I
> > used scare quotes, but these devices are also watches - as they tell
> > the time, have alarms, etc. - and are somwhat 'smart'. AFAIK, there
> > isn't a clear-cut definition as to what is/isn't a
> > 'smartwatch' (contrary to what is/isn't a 'smartphone').
> 
> I see 'smartwatches' mainly being used to buy things with, or to
> register a loyalty card. Watching somebody with large fingers
> 'swiping' a 1-inch diameter screen always makes me laugh.

  Exactly, that's what you *see*. What you don't see, is their
'invisible' uses, Not 'defending' smartwatches in any way, but only
objecting to judging things by what one sees.

> And my scepticism of the 'smart' nomenclature extends to 'smartphones'.
> But then, I am a happy Luddite. Just because we can make something,
> doesn't mean we have to use it. See: Land-based wind turbines. ULEZ
> zones.

  As to the last two (well, mainly the first one of the two), fully
agreed. Don't get me started! :-(

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45483

On 2024-12-31 20:00, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
>> On 31 Dec 2024 15:28:03 GMT
>> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 31 Dec 2024 12:10:16 GMT
>>>> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>>>    
>>>>> For me/us for example, Bluetooth headphone, small Bluetooth
>>>> transmitter [1], Fitbit activity trackers ('smartwatches') [2],
>>>>    
>>>>> [2] Already had to throw away three of those.
>>>>
>>>> Thereby confirming that the term 'smart' means no such thing.
>>>> Again.
>>>
>>>    To be fair, Fitbit doesn't call them 'smartwatches', that's why I
>>> used scare quotes, but these devices are also watches - as they tell
>>> the time, have alarms, etc. - and are somwhat 'smart'. AFAIK, there
>>> isn't a clear-cut definition as to what is/isn't a
>>> 'smartwatch' (contrary to what is/isn't a 'smartphone').
>>
>> I see 'smartwatches' mainly being used to buy things with, or to
>> register a loyalty card. Watching somebody with large fingers
>> 'swiping' a 1-inch diameter screen always makes me laugh.
> 
>    Exactly, that's what you *see*. What you don't see, is their
> 'invisible' uses, Not 'defending' smartwatches in any way, but only
> objecting to judging things by what one sees.

Years ago, I said I would never wear a smartwatch. Yet here I am, the 
happy user of one :-)

The first one very cheap, the second one a better choice, more 
expensive, and works much better.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45485

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2024-12-31 20:00, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 31 Dec 2024 15:28:03 GMT
> >> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
> >>>> On 31 Dec 2024 12:10:16 GMT
> >>>> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>    
> >>>>> For me/us for example, Bluetooth headphone, small Bluetooth
> >>>> transmitter [1], Fitbit activity trackers ('smartwatches') [2],
> >>>>    
> >>>>> [2] Already had to throw away three of those.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thereby confirming that the term 'smart' means no such thing.
> >>>> Again.
> >>>
> >>>    To be fair, Fitbit doesn't call them 'smartwatches', that's why I
> >>> used scare quotes, but these devices are also watches - as they tell
> >>> the time, have alarms, etc. - and are somwhat 'smart'. AFAIK, there
> >>> isn't a clear-cut definition as to what is/isn't a
> >>> 'smartwatch' (contrary to what is/isn't a 'smartphone').
> >>
> >> I see 'smartwatches' mainly being used to buy things with, or to
> >> register a loyalty card. Watching somebody with large fingers
> >> 'swiping' a 1-inch diameter screen always makes me laugh.
> > 
> >    Exactly, that's what you *see*. What you don't see, is their
> > 'invisible' uses, Not 'defending' smartwatches in any way, but only
> > objecting to judging things by what one sees.
> 
> Years ago, I said I would never wear a smartwatch. Yet here I am, the 
> happy user of one :-)
> 
> The first one very cheap, the second one a better choice, more 
> expensive, and works much better.

  Yes, and yours and mine can also be used for payments, but as long as
we don't use that functionality, Davey won't notice ('see') that we have
'smartwatches'! :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45487

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> And my scepticism of the 'smart' nomenclature extends to 'smartphones'.
>> But then, I am a happy Luddite. Just because we can make something,
>> doesn't mean we have to use it. See: Land-based wind turbines. ULEZ
>> zones.
> 
>   As to the last two (well, mainly the first one of the two), fully
> agreed. Don't get me started! :-(

Do you prefer to see the world burn...?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45489

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> >> And my scepticism of the 'smart' nomenclature extends to 'smartphones'.
> >> But then, I am a happy Luddite. Just because we can make something,
> >> doesn't mean we have to use it. See: Land-based wind turbines. ULEZ
> >> zones.
> > 
> >   As to the last two (well, mainly the first one of the two), fully
> > agreed. Don't get me started! :-(
> 
> Do you prefer to see the world burn...?

  False dilemma. And note that Davey/it says "Land-based". We (The
Netherlands) are a (very) small country and have one of the largest - if
not the largest - conglomerate of at-sea windfarms and justifiably so
(i.e. the lesser of the evils). As to land-based wind turbines, as I
said, don't get me started. Proponents have no clue (read: don't want to
hear) about all the negatives, and no, I do *not* mean 'just' horizon
pollution and audible sound.

  EOD.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45494

Frank Slootweg wrote on 31 Dec 2024 22:22:57 GMT :

>   False dilemma. And note that Davey/it says "Land-based". We (The
> Netherlands) are a (very) small country and have one of the largest - if
> not the largest - conglomerate of at-sea windfarms and justifiably so
> (i.e. the lesser of the evils). As to land-based wind turbines, as I
> said, don't get me started. Proponents have no clue (read: don't want to
> hear) about all the negatives, and no, I do *not* mean 'just' horizon
> pollution and audible sound.

Interesting distinction.

I googled who has more power generation (all types) from windmills:
 <https://www.google.com/search?q=chart+windmill+power+generation+by+country+2024>

Here's a table of all countries, by 
 <https://www.datapandas.org/ranking/wind-power-by-country>

The USA is number 2 (China is number 1) and the Netherlands number 17.
(1/4 of the USA wind-based power generation is in the state of Texas.)
 <https://www.chooseenergy.com/data-center/wind-generation-by-state/>

We should probably normalize that per capita though as size matters.
 <https://duckduckgo.com/&q=2024+wind+power+generation+per+capita>

Here's a table of 2023 wind power generation per capita (i.e., per person).
 <https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/wind-electricity-per-capita>

Netherlands = 1644KWh
USA = 1251KWh
China = 621KWh

In 2023, the Netherlands produced about 1-1/3rd more power from wind (per
capita) than the USA did, per capita.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45495

Andrew wrote on Wed, 1 Jan 2025 01:36:02 -0000 (UTC) :

> Here's a table of 2023 wind power generation per capita (i.e., per person).
>  <https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/wind-electricity-per-capita>
> 
> Netherlands = 1644KWh
> USA = 1251KWh
> China = 621KWh
> 
> In 2023, the Netherlands produced about 1-1/3rd more power from wind (per
> capita) than the USA did, per capita.

Since the UK is involved in this discussion, at 1217KWh of wind generation
per person for Great Britain is pretty good by way of comparison.

Netherlands = 1644KWh per capita
USA = 1251KWh per capita
GB = 1217KWh per capita
China = 621KWh per capita

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45498

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> And my scepticism of the 'smart' nomenclature extends to 'smartphones'.
>>>> But then, I am a happy Luddite. Just because we can make something,
>>>> doesn't mean we have to use it. See: Land-based wind turbines. ULEZ
>>>> zones.
>>> 
>>> As to the last two (well, mainly the first one of the two), fully
>>> agreed. Don't get me started! :-(
>> 
>> Do you prefer to see the world burn...?
> 
>   False dilemma. And note that Davey/it says "Land-based". We (The
> Netherlands) are a (very) small country and have one of the largest - if
> not the largest - conglomerate of at-sea windfarms and justifiably so
> (i.e. the lesser of the evils). As to land-based wind turbines, as I
> said, don't get me started. Proponents have no clue (read: don't want to
> hear) about all the negatives, and no, I do *not* mean 'just' horizon
> pollution and audible sound.
> 
>   EOD.

Shame. Would have liked to hear all your negatives. I have no issues with
them and being in Scotland we have a lot of off-share and on-shore
windfarms. 

You don't mention your reservations on  ULEZ, but again in Scotland all the
main cities have them. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45500

On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 16:32:47 -0000 (UTC)
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> > Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:  
> >> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:  
> >>>   
> >>>> And my scepticism of the 'smart' nomenclature extends to
> >>>> 'smartphones'. But then, I am a happy Luddite. Just because we
> >>>> can make something, doesn't mean we have to use it. See:
> >>>> Land-based wind turbines. ULEZ zones.  
> >>> 
> >>> As to the last two (well, mainly the first one of the two), fully
> >>> agreed. Don't get me started! :-(  
> >> 
> >> Do you prefer to see the world burn...?  
> > 
> >   False dilemma. And note that Davey/it says "Land-based". We (The
> > Netherlands) are a (very) small country and have one of the largest
> > - if not the largest - conglomerate of at-sea windfarms and
> > justifiably so (i.e. the lesser of the evils). As to land-based
> > wind turbines, as I said, don't get me started. Proponents have no
> > clue (read: don't want to hear) about all the negatives, and no, I
> > do *not* mean 'just' horizon pollution and audible sound.
> > 
> >   EOD.  
> 
> Shame. Would have liked to hear all your negatives. I have no issues
> with them and being in Scotland we have a lot of off-share and
> on-shore windfarms. 
> 
> You don't mention your reservations on  ULEZ, but again in Scotland
> all the main cities have them. 
> 

For us Southerners, the main issue with ULEZ is the way that Sadiq Kahn
imposed it on a huge area of London which did not need them, and
against all advice and the public's desire.
As with land-based windfarms, the differences in geography between
Scotland and the Home Counties mean that one size does not fit all.

-- 
Davey

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45501

On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 00:18:43 +0000, Davey <davey@example.invalid>
wrote:

>On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 16:32:47 -0000 (UTC)
>Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>> > Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:  
>> >> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:  
>> >>>   
>> >>>> And my scepticism of the 'smart' nomenclature extends to
>> >>>> 'smartphones'. But then, I am a happy Luddite. Just because we
>> >>>> can make something, doesn't mean we have to use it. See:
>> >>>> Land-based wind turbines. ULEZ zones.  
>> >>> 
>> >>> As to the last two (well, mainly the first one of the two), fully
>> >>> agreed. Don't get me started! :-(  
>> >> 
>> >> Do you prefer to see the world burn...?  
>> > 
>> >   False dilemma. And note that Davey/it says "Land-based". We (The
>> > Netherlands) are a (very) small country and have one of the largest
>> > - if not the largest - conglomerate of at-sea windfarms and
>> > justifiably so (i.e. the lesser of the evils). As to land-based
>> > wind turbines, as I said, don't get me started. Proponents have no
>> > clue (read: don't want to hear) about all the negatives, and no, I
>> > do *not* mean 'just' horizon pollution and audible sound.
>> > 
>> >   EOD.  
>> 
>> Shame. Would have liked to hear all your negatives. I have no issues
>> with them and being in Scotland we have a lot of off-share and
>> on-shore windfarms. 
>> 
>> You don't mention your reservations on  ULEZ, but again in Scotland
>> all the main cities have them. 
>> 
>
>For us Southerners, the main issue with ULEZ is the way that Sadiq Kahn
>imposed it on a huge area of London which did not need them, and
>against all advice and the public's desire.
>As with land-based windfarms, the differences in geography between
>Scotland and the Home Counties mean that one size does not fit all.

I think you'll find it was Johnson who imposed it in the central area.
It was always going to be extended but Khan extended it ahead of
schedule on the orders of Grant Shapps.

Still, if you think it was Khan then I suppose Shapp's plan worked.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45502

On Thu, 02 Jan 2025 09:53:59 +0000
Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 00:18:43 +0000, Davey <davey@example.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
> >On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 16:32:47 -0000 (UTC)
> >Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:  
> >> > Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:    
> >> >> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:    
> >> >>>     
> >> >>>> And my scepticism of the 'smart' nomenclature extends to
> >> >>>> 'smartphones'. But then, I am a happy Luddite. Just because we
> >> >>>> can make something, doesn't mean we have to use it. See:
> >> >>>> Land-based wind turbines. ULEZ zones.    
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> As to the last two (well, mainly the first one of the two),
> >> >>> fully agreed. Don't get me started! :-(    
> >> >> 
> >> >> Do you prefer to see the world burn...?    
> >> > 
> >> >   False dilemma. And note that Davey/it says "Land-based". We
> >> > (The Netherlands) are a (very) small country and have one of the
> >> > largest
> >> > - if not the largest - conglomerate of at-sea windfarms and
> >> > justifiably so (i.e. the lesser of the evils). As to land-based
> >> > wind turbines, as I said, don't get me started. Proponents have
> >> > no clue (read: don't want to hear) about all the negatives, and
> >> > no, I do *not* mean 'just' horizon pollution and audible sound.
> >> > 
> >> >   EOD.    
> >> 
> >> Shame. Would have liked to hear all your negatives. I have no
> >> issues with them and being in Scotland we have a lot of off-share
> >> and on-shore windfarms. 
> >> 
> >> You don't mention your reservations on  ULEZ, but again in Scotland
> >> all the main cities have them. 
> >>   
> >
> >For us Southerners, the main issue with ULEZ is the way that Sadiq
> >Kahn imposed it on a huge area of London which did not need them, and
> >against all advice and the public's desire.
> >As with land-based windfarms, the differences in geography between
> >Scotland and the Home Counties mean that one size does not fit all.  
> 
> I think you'll find it was Johnson who imposed it in the central area.
> It was always going to be extended but Khan extended it ahead of
> schedule on the orders of Grant Shapps.
> 
> Still, if you think it was Khan then I suppose Shapp's plan worked.

Whatever its origins, Khan was very happy to take the 'credit' for it.
I entered "Did Grant Shapps order the expansion of the London ULEZ?"
into a search engine, and it came up with lots of contradictory
evidence, both confirming and denying that Grant Shapps was
ultimately responsible.
You pays your money and you takes your choice.

-- 
Davey.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45520

On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 10:34:50 +0000, Davey <davey@example.invalid>
wrote:

>> >>   
>> >
>> >For us Southerners, the main issue with ULEZ is the way that Sadiq
>> >Kahn imposed it on a huge area of London which did not need them, and
>> >against all advice and the public's desire.
>> >As with land-based windfarms, the differences in geography between
>> >Scotland and the Home Counties mean that one size does not fit all.  
>> 
>> I think you'll find it was Johnson who imposed it in the central area.
>> It was always going to be extended but Khan extended it ahead of
>> schedule on the orders of Grant Shapps.
>> 
>> Still, if you think it was Khan then I suppose Shapp's plan worked.
>
>Whatever its origins, Khan was very happy to take the 'credit' for it.
>I entered "Did Grant Shapps order the expansion of the London ULEZ?"
>into a search engine, and it came up with lots of contradictory
>evidence, both confirming and denying that Grant Shapps was
>ultimately responsible.
>You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Yes, but if Khan is the villain you think he is why not use examples
of actions that were his, rather than somebody with a different
political outlook?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45519

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>> 
>> So yes, I welcome that law a lot.
> 
>   Same here with my wife's Kobo Auro E2 eReader. Battery charge lasted
> only for a few days, when *not* used.
> 
>   Also other devices with internal rechargeable batteries which are not
> replaceable by the user and often also not - or at least not
> economically feasible - by the supplier.
> 
>   For me/us for example, Bluetooth headphone, small Bluetooth
> transmitter [1], Fitbit activity trackers ('smartwatches') [2], etc..
> 
>   Apparently we're supposed to throw these devices away after only a few
> years. Not only wasting money, but also wasting precious and limited
> materials/metals and addiding to electronic waste.
> 
>   Of course user/easy replaceable batteries would make these devices
> somewhat larger and somewhat more expensive. But I would like to have
> that choice.
> 
> [1] This one is already basically dead. Only lasts for a few hours after
> charging.
> 
> [2] Already had to throw away three of those.

That's why I trust my 30+ year-old swiss watch more. It'll keep working for
several decades more and will likely appreciate in value as well. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45521

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> > Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> So yes, I welcome that law a lot.
> > 
> >   Same here with my wife's Kobo Auro E2 eReader. Battery charge lasted
> > only for a few days, when *not* used.
> > 
> >   Also other devices with internal rechargeable batteries which are not
> > replaceable by the user and often also not - or at least not
> > economically feasible - by the supplier.
> > 
> >   For me/us for example, Bluetooth headphone, small Bluetooth
> > transmitter [1], Fitbit activity trackers ('smartwatches') [2], etc..
> > 
> >   Apparently we're supposed to throw these devices away after only a few
> > years. Not only wasting money, but also wasting precious and limited
> > materials/metals and addiding to electronic waste.
> > 
> >   Of course user/easy replaceable batteries would make these devices
> > somewhat larger and somewhat more expensive. But I would like to have
> > that choice.
> > 
> > [1] This one is already basically dead. Only lasts for a few hours after
> > charging.
> > 
> > [2] Already had to throw away three of those.
> 
> That's why I trust my 30+ year-old swiss watch more. It'll keep working for
> several decades more and will likely appreciate in value as well. 

  Yes, I still have my dad's watch. Works fine. Probably 60 years old,
if not older.

  But even electronic stuff does not *have* to be 'disposable'. Example:
A year 2000 Sharp electronic digital watch [1]. Has a lithium (!)
coin-type cell which has been only replaced once in those 24+ years, by
me, and it was very easy.

[1] This is still my backup (for my Fitbit) when we go on extended
holidays to areas where it's not easy to get a good/non-expensive
replacement.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45476

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2024-12-29 19:21, Chris wrote:
>> Jan K. <janicekoziol@nie.ma.spamu.prosze.com> wrote:
>>> W Sun, 29 Dec 2024 09:00:21 -0500, bad sector napisal:
>>> 
>>>>> Given Apple hates the consumer (but loves their money), this is a good
>>>>> thing since Apple has abused its (admittedly loyal) consumers for too long.
>>>>> 
>>>>> *EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force*
>>>>> <https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20241228-eu-law-mandating-universal-
>>>>> chargers-for-devices-comes-into-force>
>>>>> 
>>>>> This Saturday is the day Apple's executives saying they were "terrified" of
>>>>> interoperating with non-Apple devices begins to (finally) come into force.
>>>> 
>>>> Good move but it has a snag; it will only perpetuate the USB inteface
>>>> wich (after microcancer $trangleware) is the worst piece of shit the
>>>> industry has ever produced.
>>> 
>>> It took a decade, but the EU has finally achieved what no other major union
>>> of countries has done: mandating a single universal connector. As the
>>> world's largest single consumer market (500 million people), this decision
>>> sets a global standard, with the rest of the world following suit.
>>> The delay was largely due to intense lobbying from manufacturers,
>>> especially Apple, which profited significantly from licensing their
>>> proprietary Lightning port.
>>> 
>>> Next up on the EU's list for 2026: Easily Changeable Batteries (you know,
>>> what every cell phone 20 years ago had before Apple).
>> 
>> Which almost no-one made use of and the only "feature" of it was that
>> phones regularly broke into three pieces every time they were dropped.
>> 
>> It's cheap to replace batteries currently. Not sure what benefit mandating
>> it will have.
> 
> It is not only phones. I had to replace the battery in my Kobo touch 
> ebook, and it was difficult.
> 
> So yes, I welcome that law a lot.

I agree with other devices there are benefits. Particularly, the smaller
things like earpods or smartwatches. I don't understand why people accept
spending hundreds on essentially disposable products. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | uk.telecom.mobile

csiph-web